First Star Trek predicted the normalization of racial diversity. Then it was cell phones. Now it’s a “theory of everything.”

Is there anything Star Trek can’t predict?

In an episode called “Shore Leave,” first broadcast in 1966, Kirk and Spock visited a planet where any thought — even an idyll one — would cause its physical creation. So whenever somebody had a dangerous idea — of a hungry tiger, for instance — an advanced computer acted instantly to manifest the thought into a physical reality. Trouble was, the crew of the Enterprise were not aware that they needed to control their thoughts, and as a consequence, hilarity ensued.

Dr. Lanza writes Biocentrism autobiographically, but also as a straight-up synthesis of his formative experiences and professional drive to solve the puzzle of life — evolution and everything.

Biocentrism was written with the help of Bob Berman, a veteran astronomer and journalist. Berman edits the astronomy section of The Old Farmer’s Almanac. He is a former Discover magazine columnist and is currently the editor of Astronomy magazine’s “Strange Universe” column. As the reader discovers, modern cosmology strongly reinforces the implications of biocentrism.

Dr. Lanza begins his book with its denouement: “The world is not, on the whole, the place described in our schoolbooks.”

The world appears to be designed for life, not just at the microscopic scale of the atom, but at the level of the universe itself. Scientists have discovered that the universe has a long list of traits that make it appear as if everything it contains — from atoms to stars — was tailor-made just for us. Many are calling this revelation the “Goldilocks Principle,” because the cosmos is not “too this” or “too that,” but rather “just right” for life. (p. 83)

“Goldilocks” is a recognized natural phenomenon covered under the anthropic principle — a term first coined by Australian physicist Brandon Carter at a 1973 symposium in Kraków to honor the 500th birthday of Nicholas Copernicus.

Nowadays science identifies this phenomenon as the observation selection effect, wherein a “selection bias” must be factored in to cosmological measurements.

The gravitational constant is perhaps the most famous [example of the Goldilocks Effect], but the fine structure constant is just as critical for life. Called alpha, if it were just 1.1x or more of its present value, fusion would no longer occur in stars. (p. 87)

The Rare Earth hypothesis narrows the field of habitation down again, until the possibilities become too extreme to believe. In fact, the long odds against your reading this article are so remote as to be practically impossible. Yet, here we are, evidently snug inside the safe wave of the physical present.

By the late sixties, it had become clear that if the Big Bang had been just one part in a million more powerful, the cosmos would have blown outward too fast to allow stars and worlds to form. Result: no us. Even more coincidentally, the universe’s four forces and all of its constants are just perfectly set up for atomic interactions, the existence of atoms and elements, planets, liquid water, and life. Tweak any of them and you never existed. (p. 84)

The trouble with the Goldilocks principle is that it ultimately infects any sample that may be subjected to the scientific method. And according to the authors, scientific observation is simply not immune to the indirect effects of the observation selection effect or to its quantum cousin, the uncertainty principle. As it turns out, the upshot for science is that when a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, as a matter of fact it makes no sound at all.

Thus, when the scientific community chooses to ignore the impact of the OSE on practical puzzles like the theory of evolution, a fateful choice is made.

But science is a limber beast, and ignoring Occam’s Razor is not a long-term solution to the dilemma posed by the OSE. In fact, at least two problems in evolutionary biology could be informed by selection bias:

Exhibit 1:Abiogenesis. To this moment, there is no standard biological or mechanical theory to explain life’s origin. There is factually no mechanism known to science that could explain how living things could have formed through random mechanical processes. Famed biologist Francis Crick and the astronomer Fred Hoyle favored the theory of panspermia, where extraterrestrials are credited with seeding earth with its first life. But Panspermia merely passes the buck. How did life begin?

94 Comments, 94 Threads

1.
Myno

This is really hardly worth debunking, but here are a few fast thoughts…

It really is sad when someone gets an advanced degree in X, and a little public acclaim, and then thinks they have meaningful contributions to make on Y. Successful actors believe they know a thing or three about politics. And unfortunately, famous medical professionals believe they have something to say about quantum chromodynamics and string theory. They generally don’t. You can trust me on this.

The observation selection effect and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The tree falling example is absurd, especially as the nature of microscopic quantum effects rarely have macroscopic manifestation.

The lack of a mechanism for the origin of life via random action and natural selection is not a proof that it did not happen.

The Fermi “Paradox” is only a paradox if one makes certain statistical assumptions, which may in fact be false.

Biocentrism is merely solipsism repackaged, and no more worthwhile than the original.

5. You will listen to me. Only to me. Sounds like Mohammad.

The uncertainty principle does not apply to consciousness, only to “measurement.” Trouble starts when non-scientists incorrectly interpret this as meaning that a conscious being must to the measuring. For the Uncertainty Principle, “measurement” does not require a being to do the measuring, it happens as a natural matter of course. Surrounding events do the “measuring.”

Readers of the “Seth” books already know about these concepts. His main concept is “Mind creates reality, not the other way around”. It goes far beyond the simple concepts listed in this article. Seth also discusses multiple universes, the reason we’re here, multiple personalities, reincarnation and many other topics that are usually dismissed as rediculous. Throughout my lifetime of searching for the truth Seth clearly blew all other concepts away. Those who don’t believe in the supernatural be aware Seth is an entity no longer in the physical plane that spoke through channeler Jane Roberts. Several hundred “sessions” were documented by Jane’s husband and incorporated into the Seth books. I started with “Seth Speaks” and instantly became fascinated by it. An example of what you will find is the concept that we live many times over. “You will reincarnate whether you believe in it or not”. We plan our lives before we are born. We choose our parents as well as our parents choosing us. You may be your mother’s daughter in one life and be that person’s parent in another. Also, there is no such thing as time. Everything exists at once. I still can’t figure that one out. One concept I find disturbing is that you cannot kill another human being for any reason. And by any reason Seth means any reason. Not even in self defense. Not that I go around killing people but what about killing a suicide bomber before he kills himself and several others? Seth also talks about Karma. Karma is not what most people think it is. If you screw someone in this life you might have to repay that person in another. But those are personal choices and agreements not edicts forced upon you by other beings or even god. Yup he talks about god too.

What this sounds like is simply a restatement of the basic principles of existentialism, as defined by Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. That is, that there is no real objective reality, only that which we “create” through an “act of will”. The “observer effect” as defined by Schrodinger is another aspect of this (i.e., the cat is neither alive nor dead until you open the box and look, which triggers the widget which kills Kitty).

What this means beyond intellectual game-playing is difficult to “see”. To follow the Star Trek analogy, as Spock said in “Court Martial”, “If I drop this pen, in a gravity field, I do not need to see it hit the floor to know that it has, in fact, done so.”

It will be interesting to see how much of the astrophysics community adopts this hypothesis as the basis for experiment. My estimate is, not very many actual workers in the field will. No, they’re not “stick in the mud” types- they just prefer to deal with quantifiable facts that can be confirmed or denied by actual evidence. Something which this hypothesis argues can never really be obtained.

While this is no doubt an appealing “philosophy” to post-modern intellectuals who fervently want to believe that the world is whatever they conceive it to be, its actual usefulness in the real world is probably minimal. That won’t stop said intellectuals from claiming that it “proves” they are Always Right About Everything.

Hmmm…so if I just refuse to acknowledge the possibility of this book’s existence, it will no longer exist in my world? And if someone I know dies, they will be pulled into a hole in the ground and suddenly reappear alive and well (was that Scotty or Sulu? It has been a while since we saw that episode.)

Interestingly enough, Dr. Lanza, as many others before him, has actually proven that there must be a God. The Bible clearly states that all God has to do is to think a thing, and it will suddenly exist. Philip M. Dauber and Richard A. Muller’s “The Three Big Bangs” not only ignore God’s hand in the equation, but they go so far as to ridicule anyone that is a Believer in a higher power. Yet, both books clearly state that there was nothing, so matter, energy, or time, and suddenly it existed. Lanza wants us to believe that we ourselves believed Creation into existance? How is that possible, when there was no WE?

Intriquing concept, which reminds me of Scott Adams’s discussion of affirmations in The Dilbert Future.

Some reactions:

1. There’s an obvious logical gap between “What we perceive as reality” and “space and time are not absolute realities”.

2. All perceptions are internal to the person perceiving. It would be true to say “Our perceptions of external and internal things are inextricably intertwined.” That doesn’t justify the claim that what I peceive as external to myself cannot be divorced from my perception of it.

3. One suspects there is work to be done to justify the equation of the behavior of “all particles and objects” with “The behavior of subatomic particles”.

4. This seems to beg the question since it is a central point of biocentrism.

5. This claim shows that biocentrism isn’t a scientific idea as such, but a philosophical a priori. One suspects there are other explanations of the fine-tuned structure of the universe that are sensible and coherent, at least internally, though they, like biocentrism, would have to be some sort of philosophical a priori idea not encompassed by science. As for the line, “The “universe” is simply the complete spatio-temporal logic of the self,” that getting close to gibberish.

6. Time isn’t a processes, it’s a dimension that can be measured. Measurement requires a conscious observer, of course, but that doesn’t mean the dimension itself doesn’t exist.

7. This is a lot like the prior point. There’s a rhetorical trick in this one, though. Despite the use of the word “thus” at the beginning of the last sentence, there’s not really an argument here in terms of premises and conclusion. The conclusion is the three prior statements rephrased.

As an encompassing theory of everything biocentrism will be a great topic for late night bull sessions on college campuses (at least it would have been in my day), but I doubt it will be the next Copernican revolution.

1. A brilliant scientist advancing our understanding of the universe.
2. One toke over the line.
3. Has watched the new StarTrek movie one too many times.

But then prior to reading this article, he didn’t exist in my perception of the known universe. And, okay, I admit it – anyone who questions “settled science” and Carl Sagan is okay by me. And answering the tree falling question will help me sleep a little better. But does this mean that the Aliens in Signs were real or not real? Those things scared the crap out of me. I think the were just make believe – but I keep seeing them at night (when I hide under my bed). Now I’m afraid of the universe too. I keep imagining meteors and stuff. If it’s all in my mind – we’re in trouble – Beam me up Scotty – I’ve got a book to add to my reading list!

Congratulations Dr. Lanza, you have rediscovered Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason.” Physics and Cosmology have reached a point where the traditional scientific method has broken down either because it is highly unlikely that we will ever discover an alternative universe or a single data point of a cosmic level phenomenon is well past the human existence. So in the end we construct elaborate mathematical theories of reality that satisfy our need to find ultimate knowledge. Science has become philosophy and religion all tied up in one.

The Postmodern attack on Science, now that they have been so successful in their attack on the Liberal Arts, which have been conquered, occupied and pacified, and they are free to redirect their forces at their next major target.

If this hypothesis is true, then all of those who try to practice “magic,” in which disciplined human will is focused in an attempt to effect and/or change reality, may be onto something.

This is sheer lunacy. This is Des Cartes to some power much greater than one. Let’s talk about consciousness with no reality to be conscious of. “Before it could identify itself as consciousness it had to be conscious of something”…Galt’s speech in Atlas Shrugged. Let’s continue to discredit Pajamas Media by publishing more pieces like this one.

…as I recall the Scripture that says, “According to your faith be it unto you.”

Of course, I suppose many of the same erudite scientists who discuss this theory with firmly knit brows would laugh at me because I have personal faith in the God of the Bible who also tells me, “as a man thinks in his heart, so is he.”

Our vaunted educational system, 30 years after throwing God out of the classroom, had to start reconstructing (without foundation) some way to teach “character”, which of course, doesn’t exist outside of a moral context…and without God, how can you have a moral context?

So also these honest scientists, having an honest discussion among themselves, now swerve into one aspect of foundational truth that is common knowledge among those who acknowledge God as God. He doesn’t call Himself “I Am that I Am” for nothing, folks.

U2′s Bono, whilst playing a gig in Glasgow, got the whole crowd to be silent and then began slowly clapping his hands. He got the crowd to clap along for a while, the stadium quiet except for the rhythmic clapping…

After a short period Bono spoke, saying that everytime he clapped his hands a child in Africa died…

Suddenly, from the front row a voice broke out in thick Scottish brogue, ending the silence as it echoed across the crowd: “so stop f*ck*ng doing it, you evil b*st*rd!”

Three paradoxes for our consideration:
1. The more one knows the less one knows.
2. Infinity is bigger than you think.
3. There is a river somewhere that flows through the lives of everyone.(String Theory)
More playfully:
6 x 9 = 42

Meryl: You nailed it. As I was reading this, one word kept flashing in my head (which, of course, means that it is now “reality”): “farout!”

People are considered “experts” in their field by other people – therein lies a flaw in the perception of what constitutes an “expert.” I’d say Dr. Lanza has expertly regurgitated centuries old philosophy by throwing a scientific spin on it. Big deal.

Why must they constantly search for what is right before their eyes? Do they think THEY have the provide the answer to the ages old question of life? It’s been answered – and quite adequately at that.

Yes, this universe was created to maintain life. The “brightest” scientists on earth haven’t been able to provide a single provable theory as to how this happened “naturally.” It seems to be beyond their comprehension that there is a “supernatural” world as well as a natural one.

The natural world was created supernaturally by a supernatural God. That’s my reality, and it doesn’t keep me up at night.

The fur has been flying over a number of things for a longer period of time
than the age of the oldest person alive right now.

Sorry, but there are matters which are outside the timeline of us on earth.

Therefore, what is real is not dependant upon me. Just brush up on the Tao,
the Rta, the Ma’at, the Torah, the philosophy of the Logos, and the first verse of the evangel according to john, when we see the greek word logos translated into english, and it comes out as “Word”.

Objectivist philosopher David Kelley might call this an example of the fallacy he calls “concept stealing.” That is to say, in order to entertain a theory of the universe being brought into existence by one’s thought, one must first assume that one exists to have the thought. But then where did one come from in the first place?

As to the puerile observations advanced as evidence along the lines of “Wow! If such and such were just a little more hot/cold/dense/light/you name it, then life would not exist, consider the Powerball lottery. The odds against any one person winning are vanishingly small – but someone always eventually wins.

Because this fallacy reappears in all ages, I assume there must be a certain sort of narcissistic personality type which so fears the prospect of a world without him (i.e., facing mortality) that he is drawn to these crank philosophies.

Empedocles had a prescience of what is still our actual questionment about “reality”, incredible how manay of his intuitions were verified by our rational science

“Empedocles postulated something called Love (philia) to explain the attraction of different forms of matter, and of something called Strife (neikos) to account for their separation. He was also one of the first people to state the theory that light travels at a finite (although very large) speed, a theory that gained acceptance only much later.”

My little Sister is unbeatable at dice games… when she tries. She can literally turn on and off the luck. She alters the probabilities. She says it is always a contest between the individuals. She “takes their luck”. One person at the table asserts dominance. There can be lesser dominant individuals, depending on the dominance ability of the others at the table, or rather, the lack thereof. I’ve seen this with her too many times to discount it.

She says it also applies to other things. It is why the ball seems to bounce your way, or why the billiard ball DOESN’T drop into the pocket when it should. Fighting for the ball is more than physical. You don’t know how you did it, eactly, “but the ball seemed to come to your hands”.

I’m the opposite. I can’t beat anyone at pure dice games. I used to until I was about eight, but no more. I’m the most unlucky SOB around. I told this to people at my wargaming club. At first they thought I was whining, but after about two years of going there regularly, they realized that maybe there was something to it, because, well… Da-amn! (Good thing I’m skillful at these games, or it would be no fun at all.)

I think the guy’s theory is over the top, but there may be an element of truth, there.

Dr. Lanza writes:
“The world appears to be designed for life, not just at the microscopic scale of the atom, but at the level of the universe itself. Scientists have discovered that the universe has a long list of traits that make it appear as if everything it contains — from atoms to stars — was tailor-made just for us.”
(From a sector of the government where some of our tax money is being well-spent) let us take a look at a very small part of this non-existent universe that was made just for us:http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090623.html
And at the nearest star we have this:http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090531.html

Lanza’s argument forms nothing new and nothing that can be proven. He posits that the universe was created to form us because we think we are here. But it could be posited just as well that the universe is very large and hostile to human life. So hostile that our fragile bodies must be encapsulated if we venture only the slightest way away from where we think we are and into it.

And isn’t it a bit strange that almost all sane humans perceive the same reality, as demonstrated by human communication and science?

“If your knees are jerking on reading this thesis, it’s fair to point out that Dr. Lanza’s credentials are impeccable. U.S. News & World Report has called him a “renegade thinker” and a “genius.””
Sure, sure. Same for Al Gore and Jimmy Carter. What distinguished gentlemen! The argument from authority, especially the wrong authority, is the weakest.

Oh, by the way … there are many theories of how life might have started from non-life. It’s a bit easier if you don’t try to get today’s highly-structured cells with their nucleus and other organelles as your first output.

G-d confounds the wisdom of man. This is the ultimate Usurpation of G-d’s function in the universe by wicked man. In this theory man puts himself squarely at the center of reality. G-d blows ur away in Five words in the in the second book of the bible. I am that I am. Either that is true or the scientist may be correct. In my reality I choose G-d.

For his hypothesis to hold, I would think that if a man believed he could fly, he would; however, man cannot fly. Many people have tried & every time he either dies from his injuries or is severely hurt from the fall. I also think this scientist thinks too much. He has overthought himself into the realm of the absurd.

I’m certainly not putting this man down, by any means. I plan to read it. But anyone with a book that has a forward written by the infamous Jimmy Carter surely causes one to give pause. However, President Obama makes Jimmy Carter look like George Washington!

Suztours, #14: So – if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?????

If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, there is also no one there to give a rat’s hindquarters whether it made a sound or not.

Methinks that’s where Lanza’s theory goes astray. His fourth principle is that “[w]ithout consciousness, ‘matter’ dwells in an undetermined state of probability. Any universe that could have preceded consciousness only existed in a probability state.” If all conscious life were to suddenly disappear from the universe tomorrow, surely the rest of the universe would go on as before – it’s just that there’d be no one left to know the difference, much less care. Put another way, Lanza is confusing awareness with concern.

Myno’s initial comment addresses the basic problems with this proposition that I’d noticed.

But to add my perspective on these..

The anthropic principle isn’t really as spooky as people often assume. It’s basically a tautology that employs the fact of human existence.

Why does the universe exist in the current state that we observe?

Because we exist in that state of the universe for which observations of the universe occur in this way.

* this is closer to the ‘weak’ form of the principle. The ‘strong’ form assumes the necessary emergence of sentient observers.

It’s a selection effect in a formal sense, in that a determinate state is observed, while many may be possible, but that doesn’t mean that this determinacy is the result of human agency.

And the uncertainty principle doesn’t assume a conscious observer. Quantum decoherence, which is the process by which these probabilistic outcomes are resolved, occurs due to the interaction of quantum systems regardless of human observation.

If it didn’t, and actually was the result of human observations, humans would need to be capable of inferring not only the last observed outcome, but the entire causal chain of outcomes leading to that point. That is, we’d need to have knowledge of all the outcomes necessary to achieve the one we’d observed. Unless you were to assume that the state of the universe was both spontaneous and regular, which is a position that actually undermines human agency. That is, the outcomes of human agency would necessarily be determined by the regularity of the universe.

Nice one Mike. It has made my day even though it has been around a while and I have only just caught it (from MND front page today).

One does not have to downgrade reality. We come from it and can appreciate parts of it. And the reality of the material universe is described well in David Bohm’s Particle Physics work as the ‘Explicate Order’, -which is subtended upon an Implicate Order, another deeper order of reality that is not material. That is itself an expression of deeper Orders of reality even further removed from our material existence.

We are expressions of all of thses Orders of Reality and have the capacity – just starting – to apprehend and appreciate it. It has taken a long time and there is far to go.

The Orders of Reality are not dependant upon us, but Bohm demontrated mathematicaly that there is a mechanism whereby what ‘happens’ at this ‘Explicate’, seemingly ‘time-bound, ’cause and effect’ level, affects what is happening in the Implicate levels. It is Iterative and not time-bound.

Mystically, one could say that everything is an expression of God, the Ultimate, ‘base-level’ Order or Reality, and what we percieve, through the glass darkly, is also an expression of God building a system to find and know Himself.

At its core this seems the justification that someone like Mrs. Obama would cite for revisionist policy in political science…Maybe even Sotomayer…
or any other “voodoo child” out to game another…Forget “a tree in the forest”..this is more like PT Barnum’s monkey-sewn-onto-a-fish “mermaid”..

It seems evident that without a mechanism for consciousness there would be no probability for its occurrence.

A sucker is born every…..
or in other words…
May the force be with you…

4. The state of your nose after intersecting the plane of the doorway immediately verifies or denies this hypothesis.

My estimate is, you will have a sore nose, which strongly indicates that Lanza, like his muse, Carter, is very probably an example of someone who has managed to be educated past his capacity for actual comprehension.

I would not be at all surprised to learn that at least part of this hypothesis was derived from the author’s miraculous discovery that he could easily pass through automatic doors in retail establishments without having to open them manually. (Since he did not bruise his probocis’ on the door, ipso facto, the door never really existed to begin with.)

As for myself, I shall continue to pass through doorways by the old-fashioned, but reliable, method of opening the door first.

That’s kinda like asking if a tree falling to the ground in the woods actually made a sound or even existed if no one was there to see and hear the tree when it fell…The truth is that while the existence of reality (the world and universe in which we find ourselves)isn’t dependent upon the consciousness of human beings the individual’s existence is dependent upon reality and in the absence of oppression, tyranny or an overwhelming event has the power to shape and mold his own individual reality and ultimate destiny.

Mathematician John von Neumann (1932), after grappling with the meaning behind the quantum reality, came to the conclusion (reluctantly) that physical objects had no reality without human consciousness.

The scientific method whereby reality is objectively measured and theories are designed to fit the observations, perhaps mankind’s greatest achievement, at its apex reaches the conclusion that there is no such thing as an “objective reality.”

The truly interesting thing, at least to me, is how many people read this and either totally missed the point, dismissed the point out of hand or are too stubborn to even consider it. That’s reality for you.

Reminds me of a Tribulation flick where the Antichrist blasphemously boasts, “For ours is the kingdom, the power and the glory, now and forever.” Rest assured, when the haughty claim to be gods, God will surely humble them in some really embarrassing way (which may or may not result in their deaths).

This is interesting. Here’s a new “gender” wrinkle to biocentrism, as outlined in wikipedia:

Biocentrism as a term has also recently gained prominence in the discussion of transgender and transsexual rights. Biocentrism in that case refers to the widely-held belief that a person who was born as a male or a female is more “real” and more valid than the individual who has become man or woman through hormonal, surgical, and cosmetic means.[13] It is this biocentric belief that continues to fuel the debate over the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival’s policy to only allow women-born, women-identified women. Transwomen are actively excluded because they are not viewed as “real women”.

BTW – for all the carping over Dr. Lanza’s thesis in the comments above, no one has advanced a more reasonable explanation for the measurement problem posed by Selection Bias. Thus Occam’s Razor remains in effect, at least for me.

Also, IMO, the sheer fury and emotionalism displayed by Dr. Lanza’s detractors in their rushed attempt to bury him as

1. inexpert,
2. unoriginal, or
3. “hardly worth debunking”,

…is itself an smoking-gun expression of professional jealousy, turf warfare, and the enforced orthodoxies present among establishment Scientists.

I was a bit hasty and harsh in my last comment, and I make some apologies for that…This is certainly an engaging topic and I was rather rash in dismissing it so abruptly…It is a theory posed and I am always intrigued by such as long as I can regard them as being outside of political agenda (unfortunately this one has such a quality)..That being said, here are some of my greater concerns:
I would agree that there it is nothing new being said in comparing this theory to early Oriental conceptualizations of the universe… (The taichi, “When the unreal is taken for the real…” etc.)…and that the universe is a construction of relations…In studying the theory of relativity, I posed the question, (mostly to myself), that the theory itself has no relativity if it has no mechanism in which to perceive it…(i.e. the human brain which recognizes the symbols and signifiers written in the equation, the reality of which has no apparent value in terms of matter when processed as “thought”…but science these days, (and I am not sure of this), seems to quantify the values of waveforms and therefore “thoughts” DO have material existence. It is my belief that cell phones exploit this territory to a certain extent. Certainly the neuroscience texts of Antonio D’Amasio suggest this is feasible. (You would also have to test this theory against the science of perceptual cognizance in terms of “sleep” and “dreams”…and even the paranormal…Where I think it would run into some difficulties.) This kind of technological breakthrough, by exploiting the manifestations of waveforms can only serve as either advancing or eroding those illusory qualities of said consciousness but only to the extent that they remain effective in a sense of a greater framework or “order”…This one being commerce and it’s ancillary features. Something like “the invisible dog fence” was created.
Then I have thought deeper about those “relations” in terms of the human species and have come up with my own hypothesis that “life”, is in effect, a conflict. That is the essence of its being. It’s kinetic energy. It is not the “White” nor “Black” tadpole of the taichi as the diagram suggests, but it is instead the thin line that separates the two entities….It is the friction…In terms of the planet Earth, and it’s unique, oddly singular dynamic, “human consciousness” can be seen as little more then a function that serves as an insular layer between the fiery core of the planet and the cold abyss of space…Something endowed to preserve the one from the other… The “consciousness” there within that layer is an amorphous “collective”, entity…It can be manipulated but only in a sense of maintaining its own equilibrium between the two, thus defining them as “space and time”. These are briefly my opinions to an extent.

The anthropic principle is a simple and obvious conclusion and has nothing to do with the rest of the assertions.

The Fermi paradox is based on very dubious statistics (it’s like asserting that we actually know the constants in the Drake equation). Fermi, no doubt, knew that.

The attempt to tie quantum measurement (quantum states are only “determined” when they are “observed”) to macroscopic phenomena like a tree falling is pathetic. Quantum physics is very weird, but only at very tiny scales. That weirdness integrates out as one gets to scales anywhere close to what humans can directly observe.

This sort of book pops up about every five years, always by someone who is very smart and well established in some field other than quantum mechanics. The same pap has appeared from neurologists and computer scientists.

Well, I can’t speak to the science of it. This stuff could well be true. Of course, the lunatics of the world will always borrow piecemeal from science to justify their fantasies. Hence the insanity that was the film “What the Bleep do we know?”. Not to mention all those college classes I sat through in which earnest humanities graduate students tried to rationalize moral and ethical relativity based on Einstein’s general relativity.

Evolution is the counter force to entropy. When evolution is done, God will re-exist in his most pure and stagnent form, and because that is boring, will start the process all over again. The Big-Bang was the reawakening of entropy into a the stagnent and pure entity of God. If this theory is correct, then everything is god all mixed up and scattered, and biological life is his way of reforming (this time), humans being the current pinnacle of life’s evolution, we are the closest to God in metaphorical sense. We are not made in his image, we are him in his infancy.

Mathematician John von Neumann (1932), after grappling with the meaning behind the quantum reality, came to the conclusion (reluctantly) that physical objects had no reality without human consciousness.

He’s also the the sumbich who invented hackable computers. Thanx for nothing, Johnny.

What a bizzare arc has “rationality” engaged in since the times of “Dubito, ergo cogito – cogito, ego sum” (I apologise to good ol’ Cartesius, who was a bright guy, but his thing, consequences notwithstanding, is itself a nice piece of circular thinking) to this super-subjectivism of the contemporaneity.

So, you proclaim these riffs on perception as verity, then you inflict them as such, from grammar school to college – no wonder that the eightie’s “what’s personal is political” has gooten so much traction in the recent presidential elections -

RE #50/tanarg: [...] The theory sort of falls apart when confirmation of the existence of a real object’s size, shape, color, and so forth outside them is made by two or more people, don’t you think? [...]

RE # 59/ Marilyn: [...] Copernicus realized that Earth was not the center of the universe. Please let Man finally accept that he’s not either! [..]

Marlyn, you got some competition here. After the post- uterine evacuation and its great disappointments, man has gone though many more offending, narcissistic corrections – the Ptolemaic insult, then as you mentioned, the Kopernicus rectification, then the Darwinistic humiliation, then the Freudian correction, then… and we can talkj about these and a few other a lot.

But how one can add Lanza’s speculation amongst the homo-sapiens decentralization of the universe… it’s still a long way.

I think many readers have lost the point of Biocentrism — which is that reality is rather like Jungian Dream, wherein the elements of the dream represent independent projections of the self.

“The dream is a little hidden door in the innermost and most secret recesses of the soul, opening into that cosmic night which was psyche long before there was any ego- consciousness, and which will remain psyche no matter how far our ego-consciousness extends.”…..Carl Jung

Biocentrism tells us that reality works something like this… except that in consciousness, the psyche somehow is the reality.

The take-away from this is not — as some would argue — a fall into Solipsism. Quite the contrary: I think Biocentrism is smoking gun for Intelligent Design.

If biocentrism has a psychological meaning, it is the recurring iron dream, symbolized by the concussion of thousands of goosestepping boots, all hitting the pavement in unison, in the attempt to project reality out of consciousness.

A reprise of Kierkegaard … Nietsche … Schrodinger … Plato … Kant … Bishop Berkeley … Descartes … The Bible … Empedocles … Jung? Nah, I think Yogi Berra’s thinking was closer to this theory than any other. When asked by Mrs. Berra where he wanted to be buried, either at his birth place, St. Louis, near their current home, New Jersey or in the Bronx, Yogi simply told his wife: “Just surprise me.”

We speculate and integrate. The questions of why and how, where and whence have been asked by the clever and the dim since way back when and I very much doubt that we will have answers any day soon.

Meanwhile we form our ideas, take old ones and give them a new spin, cook them this way and that, add a little particle seasoning and serve it up again. Do we do it with some pessimism or optimism is the real day to day question.

God is in His Heaven and I am down here eating toast. And I thank Mike for getting my attention again.

By the way, if you have some time on your hands, listen to my podcasts. They are listed on the MND front page – scroll down to where it says Pod-Spot. They won’t tell you much about God and the Universe but they will tell of pressing problems that YOU CAN do something about. You will be rewarded here on Earth for your attention. My voice has been likened to Christopher Hitchens, Sir David Attenborough and Sir Sean Connery. Wrong of course. Actually, they sound a bit like me.

Biocentrism is a type of vitalism: “a doctrine that the processes of life are not explicable by the laws of physics and chemistry alone and that life is in some part self-determining”, from“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism”

“Of course, I suppose many of the same erudite scientists who discuss this theory with firmly knit brows would laugh at me because I have personal faith in the God of the Bible who also tells me, “as a man thinks in his heart, so is he.””
Actually, many of those erudite scientists are men of faith, and have no problem with reconciling faith and science. Certainly, I don’t, though I can’t properly call myself a scientist (though I do consider myself a rational man). This is an attempt to grapple with infinity, and given how miniscule we are you have to expect things to be a bit…. vague.

I finally worked up the courage to start reading about quantum physics after I turned 40, and it was just as weird as I expected it to be. After several years of trying to learn the basics, I came to the conclusion that the counter-intuitive things I was learning might solve some REALLY big questions. John Wheeler (the physicist who coined the term “black hole”) had a couple of CRAZY ideas which, if taken seriously, would solve “the Goldilocks problem” and completely answer all the “Intelligent Design” arguments. But every time I tried to ask a practicing physicist about Wheeler’s hypothesis, I got shut down. As a “mere amateur,” I felt like I could never demand the kind of attention it would take to get any real answers–and I just don’t have the time or budget to go off to get a Ph.D. in physics to pursue this.

Now I skim the table of contents of “Biocentrism” and see Lanza and Berman are referencing all the facts and findings that led me to my conclusions.

Then I skim through the 93 comments posted so far and realize that anything I wanted to say (which Lanza and Berman have now said, with all the requisite degrees) are still dismissed as “mysticism,” “flapdoodle,” “vitalism,” and the like.

It’s not that I was too stupid. It’s not that I didn’t have the right degrees. It seems like 93 commenters will dismiss things they don’t agree with BEFORE they take them seriously.

Which suggests that anybody who wants to do any real science better develop a thick skin and not worry about comments.